site banner
Lykurg  We're all living in Amerika  1yr ago (putanumonit.com)   4523 thread views

Why Are Women Hot? – Put A Number On It!

putanumonit.com

Primarily relevant to here through the discussion of what people claim to find attractive vs. choose, but also considers various other measures of attractiveness. I dont agree with all these analyses but think its worth posting simply for considering the topic in a lot more detail then Ive previously seen.

21
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

This was an interesting article. I found myself thinking of my wife's cousin. She's:

  • Hot - I'd say 8+

  • Probably a decent lay. I know she at least does anal and has some serious practice.

  • Intelligent and funny. Definitely something that would be an acquired taste but I could enjoy it and think most men with a sense of humor would. (At the risk of too explaining too much, what I mean is she has a very specific and dry way of being these things - of course they're intrinsically valuable to anyone)

  • Financially successful

Now of course the bad - she's "crazy" in the sense that I've seen some texts pop off she's sent to men that would kill any relationship in its infancy. She's sent a snapchat saying "I'm going to fuck this guy" at 10pm and by 9am reported that she felt sexually assaulted.

This article presupposes that women who are unsuccessful romantically would benefit from some guidance. A self-help book that understands real physical attractiveness and FDS without the hardcore misandry in associated subreddits.

No fucking way. You could have the perfect self-help book on attracting a great male mate and it wouldn't affect someone's ability in the dating game at all. I have never met a woman who's open to hearing about real strategy. There are simply other concerns that take precedence - the pleasure of lashing out at someone and saying their dick's small, the enjoyment of having multiple male partners, the sublime freedom of movement that being unattached conveys, avoiding the inconvenience and discomfort of raising kids.

I have never met a woman who's open to hearing about real strategy. There are simply other concerns that take precedence - the pleasure of lashing out at someone and saying their dick's small, the enjoyment of having multiple male partners, the sublime freedom of movement that being unattached conveys, avoiding the inconvenience and discomfort of raising kids.

Would you say the same about your own wife?

Absolutely. She never needed to learn anything about dating strategy - she landed an incredible husband after all.

The women who need to change tack in the sexual market don't want to hear it. Don't get me wrong - a huge percentage of men also prefer to wallow in ignorance and blame their dating problems on someone else instead of owning their responsibility for their situation. Just not at the same level as women.

Related: David Burns has a motivational theory of human communication, including romantic relationships. The idea is that the most common cause of problems is motivation, not skill. This is contrary to the standard model, which is that communication is primarily about having the right skills, so you can read body language, tones of voice, choose your words correctly, push people's buttons in the right way etc.

A problem with the standard model is that even many mentally retarded people are able to have fulfilling and happy relationships, despite crappy communication skills and a cognitive inability to master them. One of my high school friends is retarded, but he has a stable and happy relationship with an autistic woman who shares his interests and challenges. They work together very effectively as a team, and they manage to hold down (basic) full-time jobs despite their cognitive impediments. Why? They are highly motivated and willing to do the (VERY) hard work of being together.

I suspect that most relationship advice is useless for most people who read it, because they have some mix of (a) process resistance and (b) outcome resistance.

Process resistance: "I shouldn't have to work so hard to find and keep a partner!" "It's too scary to face rejection." "Why should I be the one to make all the effort?"

Outcome resistance: "I don't want to risk being cucked. It's safer to be single." "I want a relationship, but I don't want to lose my independence." "I'm not looking for the One, but the one before the One."

With these cognitions, people can have all the communication skills, attractiveness, and so on in the world, but still be unable to develop satisfying relationships. Even if they do happen to find an interested and desirable partner, it won't work out, because they lack the appropriate motivation.

"How many single people does it take to screw a lightbulb?"

"Just one, but the person and the lightbulb must be motivated to screw."

A problem with the standard model is that even many mentally retarded people are able to have fulfilling and happy relationships, despite crappy communication skills and a cognitive inability to master them.

Ironically, my adopted + retarded brother has had pretty bad relationships. The women he's able to date are pretty emotionally abusive (and I don't throw that term around lightly). He's a super nice guy and frankly is a catch given his cognitive abilities, but I'm sure he could be more traditionally attentive as well.

I can give him relationship advice but it's always colored by his position in the sexual market. He wasn't able to find a girlfriend till he'd graduated high school by the skin of his teeth so I don't want to have him drop a relationship if he's still at least kind of enjoying it/getting laid. At least you can effectively prevent the marriage by requiring the couple to do all the work themselves to get registered and everything.

Do you have more material on this theory of relationships? A quick Google didn't come up with much.

This matches my experiences/intuitions, and my favorite relationship advice: Sex and the City's "He's just not that into you"; and the more TRP/trashy Most Favored Nation theory of past experiences. I'd love to read a good serious treatment of it.

TRP/trashy Most Favored Nation

I put that into a couple of search engines with all the variations/related terms I could think of and it turned up nothing. In fact, search engines in general seem to downrank TRP content rather heavily.

I'm not sure that's a TRP or PUA approved term, just my own; but it's a trashy reflex that fits in with that kind of thing. "He's just not that into you" or the TikTok "If he wanted to he would" stands for the idea that if a man really likes you he's going to go for you. He's not going to tell you "work is hectic" or that "the timing is bad" or that he's "coming off a breakup and doesn't want to get into anything serious right now." He's going to love you and make love to you asap, anything else means he's keeping you on the hook but not going to stick around unless he's desperate.

The Most Favored Nation idea is the sexual, hetero-male equivalent: if she's attracted to you she will want to fuck you, she will want to fuck you fast and she will want to fuck you wild, and that basically scales in terms of the wildness of the sex versus the level of attraction. So if you know, or especially if she lets it be known, or double especially if she specifically tells you, that she's been wilder with other partners, that means she was more attracted to them than she is to you and you should move on.* It's basically a rejection of women following The Rules or the FDS approach to dating; if she really liked you she'll throw out the handbook and be with you immediately. Giant red flag if she tells you about all the gross things she used to do with other guys, but doesn't do with you because you're nice to her; either she was more into them, or she is telling you how she likes to be treated while giving herself plausible deniability. You should demand in partners the best, wildest sex they've ever had with another partner, anything else means she is Just Not That Into You.

The basic concept is the same: if someone really likes you, the logical rules are suspended, and you shouldn't accept anything less than someone who really likes you. Which relates back to @Harlequin5942 's point: romance is a matter of motivation, not capability or situational context. You want someone who is motivated to be with you, not someone who is Just Not That Into You.

*The common female objection to this is that women shouldn't be obligated to perform sex acts with future partners which they did with past partners, they might not have enjoyed them after they tried them, they might be ashamed of having done them, they might be in a different place in their lives, etc. Which is why I'd offer the addendum that you shouldn't pry into a partner's sexual past, if she is really ashamed of or didn't enjoy X she'd keep X a secret. If she's flaunting her history of X all over, bragging about it to friends, she probably at least kinda liked it. Either way, it might not be perfect but it seems to be a useful heuristic every time I've seen it, with a few minor exceptions that serve to demonstrate the purpose of the rule.

Do you have more material on this theory of relationships? A quick Google didn't come up with much.

I came across it in David Burns's book Intimate Connections. I think he's done some econometric testing on it (he does that whenever he can get some data) but I don't know if the tests have been published in the psychotherapy literature, since I'm not a psychotherapist.

I'll check my library for it. Thanks!

Imagine - a woman over thirty who is not a raddled hag? What miracle of nature is this?

I'll say one thing: this entire thread is very educational about what do men want, and women really should read it 😁

Yeah.... after re-reading this post it doesn't come off entirely the way I want it to or get across what I'm trying to. Though bullet 2 is definitely tongue-in cheek.

Out of curiosity, what is the appeal of heterosexual sodomy? Why is it a selling point for this women to "do anal"? If it's two men in situational homosexuality (e.g. in prison, on a sailing ship, so on) who are desperate for a hole to stick it in, fine - but cis women have vaginas which are handily designed by nature to accommodate the penis.

I do think this is one of those porn things that has slipped into (relatively) mainstream expectations, the way fellatio was something a whore or your slave would do for you, but is now commonplace as part of what is expected in a sexual relationship, so that it's even considered vanilla.

From the women's side, I can get "you have to do it because men expect it" (allegedly some women enjoy it, though I wonder how much of that is enjoying the idea of being sexually liberated and experienced to be able to do this act), but why do men expect it? That it's uncommon so the woman must be really into you/you are a real stud if you can get her to do this? But it seems to be becoming more common. "I saw it in porn and I think everybody is supposed to be doing it, so I tried it too"? What? Just the whole idea of novelty, that now sex is easy to get without the expectations of marriage and what were formerly obscure or considered depraved acts are common, so the ante has to be upped more and more to be spicy and exciting and not the same old thing? After this, what next? Stick it in her ear (that's about the only orifice left)?

I believe there's two appeal groups:

  • Direct - Novelty, sensation/"tightness", visual appeal, no risk of pregnancy, the ass is actually a nerve center

  • Indirect - An element of submission/degradation, someone being willing to "let you in" anywhere despite the impracticality and additional overhead of prep and cleanup. This could be its own top level post.

I do see anal as something that's slipped into mainstream expectations but a lot of people forget the prep required for it. There are other sexual overton window shifts - analingus is one of life's sublime pleasures, and so having it discussed in virtually every rap song/tinder pickup line now is simultaneously satisfying and frustrating. It piggybacks off of mainstream activities like taking a shower together really easily, but I remember being made fun of for it when I was single (despite all my partners enjoying it).

While I understand lamenting the shift in expectations, I don't see either of these as game-breaking things that shouldn't be part of a valuable sexual relationship. "Good, Giving, Game" sex (defined way back in the early 00's) was how I always approached these things. So when a potentially enjoyable act requires purchasing a $4 bottle of astroglide or just timing it after a shower I have a hard time seeing why some line's been crossed.

analingus is one of life's sublime pleasures

I suppose I'm Just Too Old, but while I realise that there are a lot of nerve endings around the anus, I don't care how recently you showered: you want to put your tongue/want someone else to put their tongue in and around the place where excrement comes out. That seems a bad idea. Especially since I read a couple of years back an article by a gay guy lamenting that he (1) loved rimming with strangers (2) had, on three separate occasions, contracted some gastrointestinal disease I can't remember the name of (I think it was this one but can't be sure) from doing it. Naturally this was the fault of the government for not warning him and other gay men about it. Me, I think if you get the same disease three times from doing the same thing, that you know has a high risk of giving you this disease, you shouldn't need the government to tell you not to do it. Oh, and his boyfriend/domestic partner also contracted it later the same way. Bad government, not telling them they shouldn't do the thing that they knew would make them sick!

And if you don't see how a line has been crossed in "we're mainstreaming sticking your tongue up someone's ass/having heterosexual sodomy from being something only seen in porn to something ordinary people do", I don't know when you'll see a line about "so what is the big deal about zoophilia/necrophilia/cloning yourself and having sex with your hot 17 year old virgin self?"

After all, that was one of the complaints in Byron's divorce case; his wife claimed he forced her to engage in anal sex with him:

He asked Mrs Leigh to write to her; in addition, he refused to dissolve their marriage. A short while later, when Lady Byron made clear her suspicions that his relationship with his half-sister Augusta Leigh was incestuous, that he had had homosexual relationships, and had sodomised her – Lady Byron – acts which were illegal, he changed his mind. He agreed to grant her request if she proved that the request for legal separation was truly hers and not that of her parents. In response, she personally communicated her feelings to Augusta. Byron kept his word, and their separation was made legal in March 1816, in a private settlement

I read a couple of years back an article by a gay guy lamenting that he (1) loved rimming with strangers (2) had, on three separate occasions, contracted some gastrointestinal disease I can't remember the name of

Well N=1 but I ain't contracted shit in terms of diseases. I do recall the only time I publicly disputed the party line being pushed by my bird class (human sexuality) professor was related to the topic. I don't do spontaneous ass-eating sessions though. I could be wrong, but carpe diem.

Re: anal being an uncrossable line... I don't connect fucking a horse to a human partner risking minor discomfort for potential pleasure. Or raping your wife. Admittedly, that may be just me! But if it's unpleasant for someone, it is what it is; I don't think buttsex should be considered standard equipment.

Cloning myself with an extra X chromosome at 17 is quite an interesting thought experiment. We'd probably have a great time if I didn't have a sister to bias myself against the experience.

Just the whole idea of novelty, that now sex is easy to get without the expectations of marriage and what were formerly obscure or considered depraved acts are common, so the ante has to be upped more and more to be spicy and exciting and not the same old thing?

Mostly, yes. Casual sex is more or less normalized now, but casual anal sex isn't. Getting something not everyone gets means the woman trusts you, lets you do something she doesn't usually do.

After this, what next? Stick it in her ear (that's about the only orifice left)?

Rimjobs, a2m and golden showers, I presume.

I thought golden showers were rather old hat at this stage? But now we're wandering far afield. It really does seem to be the pursuit of increasing novelty. We'll end up with Tiberius' minnows at this rate!

1 He acquired a reputation for still grosser depravities that one can hardly bear to tell or be told, let alone believe. For example, he trained little boys (whom he termed tiddlers) to crawl between his thighs when he went swimming and tease him with their licks and nibbles; and unweaned babies he would put to his organ as though to the breast, being by both nature and age rather fond of this form of satisfaction. 2 Left a painting of Parrhasius's depicting Atalanta pleasuring Meleager with her lips on condition that if the theme displeased him he was to have a million sesterces instead, he chose to keep it and actually hung it in his bedroom. The story is also told that once at a sacrifice, attracted by the acolyte's beauty, he lost control of himself and, hardly waiting for the ceremony to end, rushed him off and debauched him and his brother, the flute-player, too; and subsequently, when they complained of the assault, he had their legs broken.

I am sure that out hunter-gatherer ancestors have tried every single sexual act we can think of and many more that we can't fathom. When your evening entertainment is limited to song, dance and sex for a ten thousand years you're going to try everything, even ear sex.

What is this place?

This website is a place for people who want to move past shady thinking and test their ideas in a court of people who don't all share the same biases. Our goal is to optimize for light, not heat; this is a group effort, and all commentators are asked to do their part.

The weekly Culture War threads host the most controversial topics and are the most visible aspect of The Motte. However, many other topics are appropriate here. We encourage people to post anything related to science, politics, or philosophy; if in doubt, post!

Check out The Vault for an archive of old quality posts. You are encouraged to crosspost these elsewhere.


Why are you called The Motte?

A motte is a stone keep on a raised earthwork common in early medieval fortifications. More pertinently, it's an element in a rhetorical move called a "Motte-and-Bailey", originally identified by philosopher Nicholas Shackel. It describes the tendency in discourse for people to move from a controversial but high value claim to a defensible but less exciting one upon any resistance to the former. He likens this to the medieval fortification, where a desirable land (the bailey) is abandoned when in danger for the more easily defended motte. In Shackel's words, "The Motte represents the defensible but undesired propositions to which one retreats when hard pressed."

On The Motte, always attempt to remain inside your defensible territory, even if you are not being pressed.


New post guidelines

If you're posting something that isn't related to the culture war, we encourage you to post a thread for it. A submission statement is highly appreciated, but isn't necessary for text posts or links to largely-text posts such as blogs or news articles; if we're unsure of the value of your post, we might remove it until you add a submission statement. A submission statement is required for non-text sources (videos, podcasts, images).

Culture war posts go in the culture war thread; all links must either include a submission statement or significant commentary. Bare links without those will be removed.

If in doubt, please post it!


Rules


Recommended Posts And Communities

Recommended Realtime Chats